Canara Bank v. JCIT

60 ITR (Trib) 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#2487 most cited

What is Canara Bank v. JCIT authority for?

For banks, the computation of bad debt allowance under sections 36(1)(vii) or 36(1)(viia) must be restricted to only incremental advances, rejecting broader interpretations by tax authorities.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Canara Bank v. JCIT · bad debt allowance for banks · section 36(1)(vii) · section 36(1)(viia) · incremental advances computation · provision for bad and doubtful debts · bank income tax deductions · ITAT Bangalore

Also reported as

68 Taxmann.com 128182 TTJ 203

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 115JBSection 10(38)Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(35)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 3asection 4asection 46section 61section 36(1)(viia)section 211section 36(2)section 210section 10(35)section 36(1)(vii)section 115ja

Judgments citing Canara Bank v. JCIT

ACIT Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 141/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 36(1)(v)

…nd placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & anr vs ING VYSYA Bank Limited 186 DTR 193. Other cases, on which reliance were placed were the decisions of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank vs CIT (2016) 68 Taxmann.com 128 (Bang Trib) and Capital Local Area Bank Ltd vs ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 387 (Amritsar Trib). On the deletion of Rs.2,23,54,660/- by the Ld. CIT(A), which had been raised by the Revenue in ITA. No.141/LKW/2024, it was submitted that the assessee bank had never claimed exemption u/s 2(15) of the Act and the only adjustment made to the prof…

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 114/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

…nd placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & anr vs ING VYSYA Bank Limited 186 DTR 193. Other cases, on which reliance were placed were the decisions of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank vs CIT (2016) 68 Taxmann.com 128 (Bang Trib) and Capital Local Area Bank Ltd vs ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 387 (Amritsar Trib). On the deletion of Rs.2,23,54,660/- by the Ld. CIT(A), which had been raised by the Revenue in ITA. No.141/LKW/2024, it was submitted that the assessee bank had never claimed exemption u/s 2(15) of the Act and the only adjustment made to the prof…

Lalita Ramniranjan Agarwal, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 662/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member\nITA No. 662/Ahd/2023\nAssessment Year 2015-16\nLalita Ramniranjan Agarwal,\nB-201, Sandal Wood\nResidency, Urmi Char Rasta\nProductivity Road,\nVadodara-390020\nPAN: AECPA0173J\n(Appellant)\nThe ITO,\nWard-1(2)(4),\nVadodara\nVs\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.R.\nRevenue by: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 24-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 28-02-2025\nORD

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…o-ordinate bench's decision in ITA_No. 1918/Kol/2018 in Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala vs. ITO decided on 04.01.2019 has deleted similar bogus LTCG vide following detailed discussion in para 3 to 5 as under... Para 8 "This tribunal's yet another decision in (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bang) Canara Bank vs. JCIT holds that the estopple principle does not apply in income tax proceedings. We therefore reject Revenue's arguments in support of impugned addition. We take into account all the relevant facts and circumstances to adopt the learned co-ordinate bench's above extracted detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to delete th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Canara Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Abharana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

…onsidered and nothing can be read into it as has been done by the authorities below. It was submitted that this issue has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank v. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]" 10. It is further held that the said decision has been followed in Vijaya Bank case. The manner in which the computation has been made has been given in the case of Vijaya Bank Case. Order passed by the Tribunal in Canara Bank's case followed in Vijaya Bank case has attained finality and the Revenue has not challenged the said…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Mangalore vs. Karnataka Bank Limited., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

…under:- ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 33 of 46 26. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) relying on following judgments allowed appeal of the assessee:- • Canara Bank v. JCIT, LTU [2017] 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (ITAT Bang) • Vijaya Bank v. JCIT, LTU in ITA No.1252/B/2010 order dt. 5.1.2018 • Nizamabad Dist. Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. v. ITO, 2014 (12) TMI 562 – ITAT, Hyd. • DCIT v. Madurai Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 194 (Chennai Trib) • DCIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. in ITA No.1485/Mds/07 dt. 30.10.2009. 27. The ld. DR relied o…

M/S. Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

…under:- ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 33 of 46 26. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) relying on following judgments allowed appeal of the assessee:- • Canara Bank v. JCIT, LTU [2017] 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (ITAT Bang) • Vijaya Bank v. JCIT, LTU in ITA No.1252/B/2010 order dt. 5.1.2018 • Nizamabad Dist. Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. v. ITO, 2014 (12) TMI 562 – ITAT, Hyd. • DCIT v. Madurai Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 194 (Chennai Trib) • DCIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. in ITA No.1485/Mds/07 dt. 30.10.2009. 27. The ld. DR relied o…

M/S Syndicate Bank, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Udupi

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1219/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…his issue has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of this ITA No.1219/Bang/2019 & ITA No.186/PAN/2019 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 22 of 32 Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank v. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]" 10. It is further held that the said decision has been followed in Vijaya Bank case. The manner in which the computation has been made has been given in the case of Vijaya Bank Case. Order passed by the Tribunal in Canara Bank's case followed in Vijaya Bank case has attained finality and the Revenue has not challenged the said…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 464/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…8 Rs.30,06,36,943/- Depreciation made for the year ended on Rs.7,05,18,382/- 31.03.2009 Hence, the depreciation was made for Rs.7,05,18,382/- for the FY 2008-09 in the books of accounts. The Appellant relied on the following decisions a) Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (182 TTJ 203) (Bang.) b) Uttaranchal High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd (309 ITR 335) c) United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889/104 Taxmann 547 (SC) d) Southern Technology Ltd Vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 11.4 The appellant submitted the following evidences, before me : - Copies of guidelines of NABARD. - Su…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 463/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…8 Rs.30,06,36,943/- Depreciation made for the year ended on Rs.7,05,18,382/- 31.03.2009 Hence, the depreciation was made for Rs.7,05,18,382/- for the FY 2008-09 in the books of accounts. The Appellant relied on the following decisions a) Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (182 TTJ 203) (Bang.) b) Uttaranchal High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd (309 ITR 335) c) United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889/104 Taxmann 547 (SC) d) Southern Technology Ltd Vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 11.4 The appellant submitted the following evidences, before me : - Copies of guidelines of NABARD. - Su…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 462/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…8 Rs.30,06,36,943/- Depreciation made for the year ended on Rs.7,05,18,382/- 31.03.2009 Hence, the depreciation was made for Rs.7,05,18,382/- for the FY 2008-09 in the books of accounts. The Appellant relied on the following decisions a) Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (182 TTJ 203) (Bang.) b) Uttaranchal High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd (309 ITR 335) c) United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889/104 Taxmann 547 (SC) d) Southern Technology Ltd Vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 11.4 The appellant submitted the following evidences, before me : - Copies of guidelines of NABARD. - Su…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 461/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…8 Rs.30,06,36,943/- Depreciation made for the year ended on Rs.7,05,18,382/- 31.03.2009 Hence, the depreciation was made for Rs.7,05,18,382/- for the FY 2008-09 in the books of accounts. The Appellant relied on the following decisions a) Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (182 TTJ 203) (Bang.) b) Uttaranchal High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd (309 ITR 335) c) United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889/104 Taxmann 547 (SC) d) Southern Technology Ltd Vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 11.4 The appellant submitted the following evidences, before me : - Copies of guidelines of NABARD. - Su…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 460/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…8 Rs.30,06,36,943/- Depreciation made for the year ended on Rs.7,05,18,382/- 31.03.2009 Hence, the depreciation was made for Rs.7,05,18,382/- for the FY 2008-09 in the books of accounts. The Appellant relied on the following decisions a) Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (182 TTJ 203) (Bang.) b) Uttaranchal High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd (309 ITR 335) c) United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889/104 Taxmann 547 (SC) d) Southern Technology Ltd Vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 11.4 The appellant submitted the following evidences, before me : - Copies of guidelines of NABARD. - Su…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co Operative Bank Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…8 Rs.30,06,36,943/- Depreciation made for the year ended on Rs.7,05,18,382/- 31.03.2009 Hence, the depreciation was made for Rs.7,05,18,382/- for the FY 2008-09 in the books of accounts. The Appellant relied on the following decisions a) Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (182 TTJ 203) (Bang.) b) Uttaranchal High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd (309 ITR 335) c) United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889/104 Taxmann 547 (SC) d) Southern Technology Ltd Vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 11.4 The appellant submitted the following evidences, before me : - Copies of guidelines of NABARD. - Su…

The Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1796/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…8 Rs.30,06,36,943/- Depreciation made for the year ended on Rs.7,05,18,382/- 31.03.2009 Hence, the depreciation was made for Rs.7,05,18,382/- for the FY 2008-09 in the books of accounts. The Appellant relied on the following decisions a) Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (182 TTJ 203) (Bang.) b) Uttaranchal High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd (309 ITR 335) c) United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889/104 Taxmann 547 (SC) d) Southern Technology Ltd Vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 11.4 The appellant submitted the following evidences, before me : - Copies of guidelines of NABARD. - Su…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Canara Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 716/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

…itted that in identical circumstances, in assessee's own case, the assessee had made provision in similar manner as made n A-Y. 2013-14. A co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had accepted the provision made by the assessee benefit in Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1. He further submitted that the said order has been followed by the Tribunal in Vijaya Bank and Others vs. Joint Commissioner, Bangalore ITA No.915 & 845/Bang/2017 dated 05.01.2018 and the said method of making provision has been approved by the Calcutta High Court in Uttarabanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank case. 8. We have carefully considered the…

Canara Bank, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

…itted that in identical circumstances, in assessee's own case, the assessee had made provision in similar manner as made n A-Y. 2013-14. A co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had accepted the provision made by the assessee benefit in Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1. He further submitted that the said order has been followed by the Tribunal in Vijaya Bank and Others vs. Joint Commissioner, Bangalore ITA No.915 & 845/Bang/2017 dated 05.01.2018 and the said method of making provision has been approved by the Calcutta High Court in Uttarabanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank case. 8. We have carefully considered the…

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 875/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09 Karnataka Bank Ltd. Near Mahaveer Circle Pumpwell Kankanady Vs. Mangaluru Dcit Karnataka 575 002 Mangalore Pan No.Aabct5589K Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Dated 27.9.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Is Bad Is Law & Against The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Remanding The Issue Back To The Ao For Verification. 2.1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Having Observed In His Order That All The Details Required To Comply With The Directions Of Itat Has Been Furnished By The Assessee Bank, Ought Not Have Remanded Back The Issue Again To Ao For Verification, Instead Of Allowing The Appeal In Favor Of The Assessee Bank. 2.2 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Not Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Learned Assessing Officer.: Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru Page 2 Of 6 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Is Beyond The Directions Given By The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…ITA No.875/Bang/2023 Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Karnataka Bank Ltd. Near Mahaveer Circle Pumpwell Kankanady Vs. Mangaluru DCIT Karnataka 575 002 Mangalore PAN NO.AABCT5589K ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, A.Rs Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is direct…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 391 & 392/Bang/2023 Assessment year : 2019-2020 M/s. Canara Bank, The Deputy FM Wing, Head Office, Commissioner 112, J C Road, Vs. of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 002. Circle – 2(1)(1), PAN : AAACC6106G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ananthan S & Appellant by : Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Assessment Year : 2019 – 2020 (By Revenue) Date of hearing : 16.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 O R D E R PER B…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 391 & 392/Bang/2023 Assessment year : 2019-2020 M/s. Canara Bank, The Deputy FM Wing, Head Office, Commissioner 112, J C Road, Vs. of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 002. Circle – 2(1)(1), PAN : AAACC6106G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ananthan S & Appellant by : Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Assessment Year : 2019 – 2020 (By Revenue) Date of hearing : 16.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 O R D E R PER B…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 391 & 392/Bang/2023 Assessment year : 2019-2020 M/s. Canara Bank, The Deputy FM Wing, Head Office, Commissioner 112, J C Road, Vs. of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 002. Circle – 2(1)(1), PAN : AAACC6106G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ananthan S & Appellant by : Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Assessment Year : 2019 – 2020 (By Revenue) Date of hearing : 16.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 O R D E R PER B…

Canara Bank v. JCIT (60 ITR (Trib) 1) — Cited in 47 Judgments | BharatTax